We do have a debate amongst the great community of the game, let us take note of those that are in favour of the changes and those that are not. It is always the most educated, intelligent, creative, game theorists that are not in favour. The best players, who themselves wish for the most +ev and sustainable game, because thats what intelligent pros want, are noticeably disheartened by these changes.

Who is in favour of them? Always we can see the peoples that are pushing these changes are those that do not at all profit directly from the sustainability of a profitable poker environment. Many who profit only from sponsorship and other ad/market based revenues, and the sites themselves.

Do we not see, that this is an inflationary change in regards to effective rake?

@paulgees81 stars is trading in our FPPs for “StarsCoins” which instead of being worth $0.016 are worth $0.01

I don’t know how to be more clear, and I await the other knowledgeable players to finally clue into this is the exact some policy we are being FED (see what I did?) in regards to money supply manipulation and inflation targeting through monetary policy.

OPR explicitly states:

The premature ending of Supernova Elite and switch to StarsCoins penalizes players

SNE’s will either have to quickly use their FPP’s or see their value diminish come January 1.

Verdict = True

On the topic of whether Poker Stars wants to make it unbeatable OPR states:

There are only two ways a poker site could turn everyone into a losing player:

By jacking up the rake to an unbeatable level, which it is nowhere near at present.

Or, if the skill gap between players all but disappears, which is also (at present) an impossibility.

Firstly we would like to point out you measure a games beatability in this regard in terms of effective rake. Raising or lowering effective rake is how we would view a beatable vs non-beatable game. But what is most important to point out here is the second point is simply not true. Its not at present an impossibility but rather its a very important perspective to understand. Here’s why.

Poker sites naturally (and obviously) seek to create a breakeven environment, so for example sites might quite rather create tiers between players types (aka segregated players pools!). So although in a vacuum we might say at present its an impossibility what is more important is to point out that sites would favour such a trend of a breakeven field (while from an effective rake stand point players would not!).

Why is this important, well because this:

PokerStars wants to make its games unbeatable

Verdict = False

OPR did bad math and bad economical thinking and then essentially lies to the players. They sell the players a quasi doctrine.

And this is exactly why the term effective rake was levated on the wealthofchips. Because now the players have a phrase to perfectly distinguish between the quasi and real truth to the rake polices.

PokerStars is raising the rake in high stakes games

Verdict = Mostly false, but somewhat true from a certain point of view

Originally Posted by Sect7G

Well said MeleaB^^

A lot of people think that an opinion has more bearing when it comes from a “news” website. The reality is more often than not these sites are heavily sponsored by websites to put a slant on articles to benefit them. Even if they’re not currently sponsored by websites a lot of these “news” sites are just playing the long game to build up their user base before they cash in their chips and obtain sponsorship at a higher price.

wtf does… false but could be true from a POV mean anyways?

He doesn’t even have an opinion.

Originally Posted by MeleaB

He means “Technically, no, but the effective rake has.

OPR uses the phrase effective rake, and uses it correctly however they have failed to understand the PURPOSE of the phrase. Effective rake lets the players understand from the PLAYERS perspective the effects of these changes.

PokerStars is cutting the rewards of virtually all players

Verdict = False

The above is fox newstyle reporting in that there is no legit argument and especially point of counter arguing such a useless statement. HOWEVER it CAN be shown that these changes are not good for the economy of the game which in turn DOES effect all players.

An example from the OPR DIRECTLY below the argument, that players are suggesting PS is cutting rewards of all players, is not true or useful:

“The only players who will see an increase in rakeback, are ChromeStar players. How much rakeback? Roughly 30 cents… Anyone playing small enough stakes to where this 30 cents matters to them is already playing in a game that is raked so high by stars that it is literally unbeatable (>15bb/100 rake is common at micros).”

Then next section again offers quasi-economical points:

Similar to the previously discussed criticism (PokerStars wants to make every player a losing player), a number of poker pros have zeroed in on the beatability of specific games. What this argument fails to consider is the simple truth that most people aren’t playing poker for the long run or to grind out a profit every month. A game’s long-term EV is about as important to the vast majority of potential online poker players as the long term EV of roulette or craps.

This situation VASTLY depends on the economic circumstances. For example in a historical poker boom you were likely to attract players that are less aware of rake% and unawares of effective rake. Yet in a highly competitive game or a game with mostly “good” players, or smart players you will find the trend to the opposite. Most important as time goes by, and with the assumption that our society is getting smarter as a whole, rake % and effective will be on the mind of even the most beginner and recreational players.

I must make only a quick point and side street that all these arguments also ignore technological and sociological advance (game theorists learn new strategies!).

Effective rake was created so that players can understand that the monies that leaves the PLAYERS economy necessarily degrades it accordingly (and of course the corollary would be true, money that is diverted back to the economy improves it!). The belief that you can take value out of an economy and yet arrange the parameters in such away that the economy gains is a very bad and detrimental viewpoint comparable only to some of the most systematically heinous governing and societal systems mankind has produced.